Strategic Planning and Institutional Effectiveness System

For the Fiscal Years 2003-2008 Period

Fall 2003

A Member of the Texas State University System
An Equal Opportunity Institution

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Mission
• Strategic Considerations
• Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Process
• Exhibit I: Illustration of the Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Process
• Exhibit II: Planning Timetable
• Exhibit III: Campus Strategic Goals and Critical Focus Area
• Exhibit IV: Annual Operational Objectives (2004)
• Exhibit V: Annual Unit Plan Components

LAMAR STATE COLLEGE-ORANGE MISSION STATEMENT

Lamar State College-Orange is an open admissions, lower-division state institution of higher education with the Texas State University System. Our mission is:

1. to provide academic transfer and associate degree programs to prepare students for senior colleges and universities;
2. to provide technical certificate and associate degree programs to prepare students for employment;
3. to provide developmental programs for students not ready for college-level work;
4. to provide continuing education and customized training programs for those pursuing areas of personal interest or upgrading employments skills; and
5. to provide community service activities that promote economic development and cultural awareness.

STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS

I. OVERVIEW OF SCOPE AND FUNCTION

Lamar State College-Orange is a two-year, lower division component of the Texas State University System located in Orange, Texas. The institution is independently accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. It offers the citizens of southeast Texas an academic transfer curriculum, training in a variety of vocational/technical fields, developmental education for the underprepared, and a diverse program of public service activities.

The campus primarily serves residents of Orange County, but offers some unique programs that attract students from neighboring Texas counties and several Louisiana parishes. The level of education attainment among the general population is low by state standards. Traditionally, the petrochemical industry has provided secure, well-paying jobs that did not require higher education. Economic changes that began in the 1980s have reduced those opportunities and emphasized the need for advanced education and training. Lamar State College-Orange has been in a position to provide these needed educational resources to the community.

A growing enrollment increased demand for equipment and facilities on campus. Access to the Higher Education Assistance Fund (HEAF), combined with special item appropriations and tuition revenue bond proceeds, has allowed the institution to invest in improvements to meet these needs. The campus engaged in a $15 million capital project that included upgrading the campus infrastructure, construction of a new library/administration building, and the addition of more classroom space. HEAF funds have also been used to improve library resources and modernize equipment.

II. ORGANIZATION

In Fall 2003, Lamar State College-Orange served a credit enrollment of 1853 students. The faculty is composed of 47 full-time instructors and 57 part-time instructors. The full-time staff of 110 consists of six administrators, 47 professional positions, and 57 classified employees. The institution continues to struggle with the need to increase the number of minority faculty.

Lamar State College-Orange has been fortunate to attract a number of highly qualified, capable individuals to fill faculty and staff positions. Membership in the Employees Retirement System of Texas has provided an attractive benefit package to agency employees. Compensation, however, remains a source of concern. Compensation rates for both faculty and professional staff must increase if the institution is to retain its best employees and attract qualified applicants for future openings.

The chief executive officer of the campus is the President. Three executive officers report directly to the President: the Vice President for Academic Affairs; the Vice President of Student Services; and the Vice President of Finance. The Director of Physical Plant, and the Public Information Officer also report directly to the President. The Vice President for Academic Affairs is responsible for all instructional divisions, the Library, the Learning Center, Institutional Research and Effectiveness, Continuing Education and Workforce Development, the ACE Teacher Education Program and Computer Information Services. The Vice President of Student Services is responsible for admissions and records, advising and testing, financial aid, student activities, and auxiliary services such as the bookstore and Brown Center. The Vice President for Finance is responsible for purchasing, accounting, payroll, human resources, and the finance office. The relatively small size of the campus allows for an open, "hands-on" management style.

Lamar State College-Orange is fully committed to the concept and practice of equal opportunity for all citizens. As a part of that commitment, Lamar State College-Orange has aggressively tried to increase its use of historically underutilized businesses. The total HUB spending trend has increased since FY2000 as indicated below with the exception of FY2001.* Purchases of computer equipment for staff, faculty, and the new Ron E. Lewis Library far exceeded $1 million dollars for that year. HUB purchases for that year reflect an abnormal amount due to the construction process that is still ongoing.

III. FISCAL ASPECTS

Lamar State College-Orange, like all public institutions of higher education in Texas, is faced with the problem of increasing demands and limited resources. Because of the institution's educational mission, the institutional budget is devoted heavily to personnel costs. These costs are fixed and limit management's flexibility. For the last four years, the total agency budget has been skewed by externally funded projects that were self-supporting and by special funding dedicated toward completion of the Master Plan project. These projects added to the budget total but did not provide additional revenue to support the institution's educational objectives.

During the coming years, Lamar State College-Orange will be challenged to do more with fewer resources. The institution will need to look for ways to be more productive and more efficient. Additional effort will be required to raise external funds that can help support the institution's operational needs.

IV. SERVICE POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS

The following demographic assumptions were developed by the Campus Planning Committee in conjunction with the Office of Institutional Research at Lamar State College-Orange.

1. The number of high school graduates in Orange County will remain stable through 2008 with some shifting among school districts.
   
   
2. The number of potential students with developmental and learning disabilities will remain relatively high, and the number who enrolls in higher education will continue to increase.
   
   
3. The population of Orange County will show a slight decline through 2008.
   
   
4. The population of Texas will increase approximately 9.0% by 2008 with the minority population increasing more rapidly than the population as a whole.
   
   
5. The unemployment rate in Orange County will be between 7% and 8% through 2008.
   
   
6. Per capita income in Orange County will increase modestly but remain slightly below the state average through 2008.
   
   
7. National and state-wide scores on the SAT and ACT examinations will increase gradually through 2008, but scores in Orange County will continue to trail national and state-wide averages.
   
   
8. The cultural diversity of the population in the immediate region will continue to remain homogeneous as compared to state and national populations.
   
   
9. Welfare and policy changes for residents receiving public assistance will lead to increase in enrollment of underprepared non-traditional students.

V. TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS

Lamar State College-Orange relies upon a computer-based management information system to handle financial affairs (including payroll), student information, and human resources. The campus, in conjunction with other Lamar components, operates an integrated administrative system that contributes to management efficiency. Lamar State College-Orange has also fully networked the campus to provide maximum benefit from the new computer technology. This system should handle all anticipated MIS needs through 2004; however, longer term needs will necessitate a total review of campus capabilities by FY2005.

Technology is also important to the instructional mission of the institution. In order to be productive members of the workforce, students must have familiarity with the technology used by business and industry. Lamar State College-Orange anticipates the need for more programs in the science, and health-related fields. New instructional programs will rely heavily on advanced technologies.

Distance learning capability will grow to meet the increasing demand for non-traditional instruction. Internet-based instruction is the fastest growing segment of distance learning and the area with the greatest potential for growth. Additional resources will be needed to expand capabilities.

VI. ECONOMIC VARIABLES AND ASSUMPTIONS

The following economic variables and assumptions were developed by the Campus Planning Committee:

1. Students will bear increasingly larger portions of the cost of higher education.
   
   
2. Federal support for financial aid will increase at less than the increase in costs.
   
   
3. Improvements in the formula system will provide modest financial assistance to Lamar State College-Orange. Performance-based funding will continue as part of the appropriation process and will supplement the formula system.
   
   
4. At best, state appropriations will increase at a rate equal to the inflation rate.
   
   
5. The competition for philanthropic funds will intensify.
   
   
6. Local funds and external funds will become a more significant portion of the campus budget.
   
   
7. Academic remediation will require an increasing by larger proportion of institutional resources.
   
   
8. A scarcity of faculty in select fields will increase the unit cost of instruction.
   
   
9. Public concern about educational quality and costs will continue to intensify.
   
   
10. Higher education's role in industrial/economic development will intensify both through private initiative and public policy.
    
    
11. Involvement of private industry as a direct competitor with traditional educational institutions in the higher education market will intensify.
    
    
12. Higher education will continue to be viewed as an important force in economic and social well being.

VII. IMPACT OF FEDERAL STATUTES/REGULATIONS

Lamar State College-Orange is not subject to any special federal statutes or regulations. The institution is impacted, as are all institutions of higher education, by the statutes and guidelines that govern federal aid to education. Because many of our students qualify for federal financial assistance, the rules and regulations governing the administration of those programs affect our institution. These rules and regulations, however, pose no particular threat or risk to Lamar State College-Orange. The financial aid programs are relatively stable; no drastic change is anticipated.

VIII. OTHER LEGAL ISSUES

Lamar State College-Orange is unaware of any statutory changes, government requirements, or court cases that will impact the institution.

IX. SELF EVALUATION AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

Lamar State College-Orange established a comprehensive planning process that emphasized institutional effectiveness as a result of a Southern Association of Colleges and Schools site visit in 1993. That visit resulted in continued accreditation with enhanced emphasis on planning and assessing performance. Since that time, Lamar State College-Orange has been successful at meeting its legal requirements, serving critical populations and achieving accreditation and recognition. Specifically, Lamar State College-Orange is in good standing after a federal financial aid audit, received a favorable recommendation from the American Society of Health System Pharmacists (ASHP) for accreditation of a new Pharmacy Technology program, continued in good standing with state boards for the emergency medical services, vocational nursing and associat degree nursing programs; and sought and received accreditation for the Medical Laboratory Technology Program from the National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Services and the American Dental Association for the Dental Assisting Program.

Areas in need of improvement as noted from both internal and external constituencies include assessment of the core curriculum, diversity in the faculty, revision of the advising system and fiscal resources.

The availability of bond money and special item appropriations allowed Lamar State College-Orange to address many of the physical plant needs. Other financial resources are being pursued for activities such as student scholarships and recruitment. Broad based community support is an invaluable resource used for institutional support on various levels. However, financial resources alone cannot lessen the impact of demographic obstacles. Faculty diversity is much more difficult to achieve in this geographic region.

PLANNING AND INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS PROCESS

INTRODUCTION

The Institutional Effectiveness process at Lamar State College-Orange is the driving force behind the planning process. The Institutional Effectiveness process is the one mechanism that involves all facets of the college and includes the components of planning, assessment and use of results. Annual unit plans, evaluations, and budget implications are an integral part of the IE process (Exhibit 1).

Beginning in 1994, Lamar State College-Orange embarked on a comprehensive campus planning process. Institutionalizing the process was accomplished by expanding and diversifying the representation on the Campus Planning Committee, conducting more frequent planning meetings, and providing training to account managers on the integration of planning and budgeting. Positive reinforcement from the President, training on the process, and examples of the benefits of planning and evaluation resulted in acceptance by the campus community. The Director of Institutional Effectiveness has primary responsibility for monitoring the progress of the planning and evaluation process.

The integration of planning and budgeting was accomplished by defining the budget as a written expression in financial terms of the comprehensive plan. It is extremely functional in identifying opportunities, establishing priorities, solving problems, and serving as a motivational, communication, evaluation and control tool. The process is fully integrated and accepted campus-wide.

THE PLANNING PROCESS

Lamar State College-Orange engages in three levels of a successful planning process: 1) Campus Strategic Planning which occurs in a five-year cycle with annual review, determines areas of critical focus, and provides planning priorities for the entire campus; 2) Annual Operational Objectives determined by the Campus Planning Committee serve as the institution's vehicle for implementing campus-wide elements of the Strategic Plan; and 3) Annual Unit Planning prepared by each functional department, includes specific measurable criteria, mid-year review, and is directly tied to the budgeting process.

All levels of campus planning include broad-based participation. The Campus Planning Committee includes faculty, staff, administrators, alumni, and students. During the planning cycle (Exhibit II), the CPC considers the following:

1. Assessment of institutional performance
2. College mission
3. Priorities established by the President
4. External conditions such as political climate, economic trends and demographic changes
5. Internal factors such as fiscal conditions, enrollment trends and employee morale

The Campus Planning Committee sets institutional long-range goals and areas of critical focus (Exhibit III). That also determines annual operational objectives (Exhibit IV) on which the individual functional units base their unit plans. Each functional department on campus then develops its proposed Annual Unit Plan (Exhibit V), which is tied to the budgeting process every spring semester for the following fiscal year. The mid-year review of the current Annual Unit Plan is conducted at that time and is formally presented with the proposed Annual Unit Plan and budget request at a budget hearing.

A. CAMPUS STRATEGIC PLANNING

Campus strategic planning defines the institution's mission and establishes long-term goals (five years) that support the mission. Campus planning includes assessment of institutional performance. The responsibility for implementing campus planning resides with the Campus Planning Committee.

Assessment of Institutional Performance
The Campus Planning Committee, on an annual basis, identifies operational objectives for the campus by which the institution can measure progress. Each unit also develops criteria for individual unit goals. The Office of Institutional Research is responsible for gathering institution-wide assessment data such as retention/migration rates, enrollment demographic information, program completion rates, developmental education student success data, etc. Operational campus units also engage in assessment and evaluation. For example, Academic Affairs engages in a cycle of program reviews, Student Services gathers data on student participation in extracurricular activities, and the Business Office monitors its compliance with the Prompt Payment Act.

College Mission
Institutional planning at LSC-O includes a direct relationship with the institutional mission and purpose. The Campus Planning Committee annually reviews the mission statement and, when necessary, recommends modifications for approval by the TSUS Board of Regents.

Priorities Established by the President
The President of Lamar State College-Orange serves on the Campus Planning Committee and provides direction to the group when prioritizing efforts, resources and long-range goals. The President provides a vision for planning based on assessment information and other factors.

Analyze External Environment
The Director of Institutional Effectiveness and the Campus Planning Committee are responsible for monitoring and analyzing external factors that impact the institution. These factors include demographic change, the political climate, economic trends, technological innovation, and the social environment. Information about these factors is collected by the Coordinator of Institutional Research and presented to the Campus Planning Committee for consideration during the planning cycle.

Analyze Internal Environment
Internal factors also play a key role in establishing campus goals. In order for planning to be effective and beneficial, it is necessary to evaluate performance and to use the results of such evaluation in revising (if necessary) the mission and formulating goals. This evaluation looks at all aspects of institutional operation: enrollment trends, instructional effectiveness, fiscal conditions, institutional climate, etc. Performance during the previous year is evaluated against criteria established during the previous planning cycle.

Establish Long-Range Goals
The Campus Strategic Plan for Lamar State College-Orange evolves from the steps outlined above. The Campus Planning Committee, using the accepted institutional mission as its guide, reviews the external and internal environment, considers assessment data, and identifies goals that will support and advance that mission. Critical focus areas are also determined.

B. ANNUAL OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES

Campus goals are achieved through the implementation of operational plans that allocate personnel and resources to projects/tasks that advance the institutional mission. As part of its annual responsibility, the Campus Planning Committee publishes operational objectives to guide departments and divisions in the development of unit plans and budgets for the coming year. These operational objectives include performance indicators that are subject to assessment and evaluation. The assessment and evaluation data are published on an annual basis and distributed to the campus community.

C. ANNUAL UNIT PLANNING (ALL CAMPUS LEVELS)

Operational Planning for the coming fiscal year (academic year) follows a schedule published by the Director of Institutional Effectiveness and approved by the campus Planning Committee. Operational planning follows the adoption of the five-year campus goals and objectives for the next year. Before the start of unit operational planning, the Director of Institutional Effectiveness prepares and publishes a summary of campus-wide objectives previously adopted by the Campus Planning Committee.

Evaluation (Current Year)
An essential element in this process is the evaluation of the institution's performance in meeting objectives from the previous year. A mid-year progress report is required for each unit on campus that summarizes performance for the year to date. This report includes objective data measurements identified in the action plan; it may also include subjective assessments. The department/division emphasizes accomplishments that support operational objectives and campus goals and explains any failure in attaining performance targets.

Unit Plan (Coming Year)/Budget Request
The unit plan outlines the objectives that the department/division wishes to accomplish during the coming year. The departmental/divisional objectives support institutional goals and operational objectives approved by the Campus Planning Committee. The unit plan must identify specific performance indicators that are used to measure effectiveness and set specific performance targets for the coming year. The unit plan indicates any need for additional resources. Each department/division identifies the resources needed to accomplish the objectives listed in the action plan and completes budget request forms detailing those resource needs. Requests for new personnel, equipment, and capital projects are itemized.

Plan Approval/Budget Allocation
Department/division plans and budget requests are forwarded to the appropriate administrative officer for review. In 2002, the campus initiated a new procedure called a "budget hearing" where each account manager is required to appear in front of the Executive Council (the three Vice-Presidents and the President). The mid-year evaluation of the current year's plan is presented as well as the proposed plan and budget request for the upcoming fiscal year. Requests for funds must be tied directly to operations or specific unit objectives. The President, after consultation with appropriate executive personnel, approves a budget for submission to the Board of Regents. The budget supports the campus goals and operational objectives adopted by the Campus Planning Committee.

ASSESSMENT

Assessment is an integral part of the planning process and is required in the development of institution-wide plans and the implementation of unit operational plans. Assessment data are gathered throughout the year and compared to previous year data. They are integrated throughout the planning process outlined above.

In addition to assessment of campus and unit plan objectives, the institution engages in periodic assessment of programs and services. Most of the assessment occurs through the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness. However, many aspects of assessment occur at the unit level, as it is the operational unit that is responsible for providing a quality program or service. Some of the assessment activities have been developed and implemented across divisions, imbedded in normal operations and supplement the externally mandated assessment requirements.

Institution-wide assessment data
Examples of institution-wide assessment data include both those that are externally mandated and those determined critical by the campus planning committee. Student satisfaction, transfer studies, graduate follow-up, institutional climate and technology needs surveys are examples of this type of assessment.

Unit assessment
Both instructional and administrative/service units engage in ongoing assessment activities specific to their mission and goals. In addition to employee performance appraisals, other examples include evaluation by attendees at student activities, usage of the tutoring center, distance education course proposal reviews, continuing education course evaluations, internal audit of travel procedures, and the budget hearing process.

Analysis
The Director of Institutional Research coordinates the collection and collation of data. The Director of Institutional Effectiveness publishes an analysis comparing actual performance results to each target. This analysis is distributed to the campus community.

USE OF RESULTS

The analysis of institutional performance is the critical element in evaluating institutional effectiveness and formulating plans for future years. It impacts appraisal of the institutional mission, assessment of institutional goals, and review of operational objectives. This analysis is integrated into the budget process and used to determine the allocation of resources.

Specific campus-wide objectives are assessed. These results are used in a variety of ways to improve institutional and student performance. For example, summer class length has been extended, customized training contracts have been implemented with industry, additional remedial courses have been developed and financial aid workshops have been conducted.

Further examples of continuous improvement based on assessment results occurred after several cycles of retention and enrollment information were analyzed. The institution contracted with Noel-Levitz to conduct a comprehensive study and develop a plan for both marketing and recruitment. Initial information resulting from their assessment led the Academic Affairs Office to revise the rotation of courses scheduled during the night and daytime periods.

Other results of the assessment process were the realization that some goals/objectives were not realistic and measurement of said goals was not always possible. On occasion, the source of measurement was determined to be inappropriate or inadequate.